United States v. 2020-06-15 | 18-70399 | PARTAP SINGH V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PARTAP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70399
Agency No. A206-340-923
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2020
**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Partap Singh, a native and citizen of India, timely petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum,
FILED
JUN 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Because the BIA conducted its own analysis and adopted the IJ’s
decision, we review both decisions. Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091
(9th Cir. 2014). The agency did not err in concluding that Petitioner is ineligible
for asylum and withholding of removal because Petitioner did not establish that he
was or will be persecuted on account of a protected ground. The finding that
Petitioner’s persecutors were motivated by a desire to protect their illicit
operations, and not by Petitioner’s anti-corruption political opinion, is supported
by substantial evidence. See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802–03 (9th
Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (reviewing for substantial evidence a finding of persecutor
motive). Petitioner credibly testified that his persecutors were so motivated.
Moreover, the threats and attacks that Petitioner endured were tied to Petitioner’s
reporting about the profitable, criminal enterprise run by his persecutors. The
record therefore does not "compel" a finding that Petitioner was persecuted on
account of his political opinion. Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 826–27 (9th Cir.
2019) (per curiam); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ("administrative findings of fact
are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
2

to the contrary"). Accordingly, Petitioner is not eligible for asylum or withholding
of removal.
2. The agency concluded that Petitioner is not eligible for CAT relief
because he did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (stating standard for protection
under CAT). Petitioner does not challenge that dispositive finding. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s CAT claim is waived or forfeited. See Cruz v. Int'l Collection Corp.,
673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
3